Lawrence: Also, I think the bombing of WMD sites
accompanied by Special Forces on the
ground if necessary, will be a cost-effective
solution. They haven't
offered evidence that it is more expensive than
their approach. We would
still need troops and planes to make sure Iran
didn't use its porous borders
to break the containment/isolation/sanctions.
Eric: Here's how they evaluate the downside of use
of force, from the same article.
"U.S. air strikes probably could destroy Iran's
critical nuclear facilities—at least those we know
about. But our intelligence is hardly perfect, so
we would not really know if Tehran's nuclear
program was in fact destroyed. A military attack
against Iran would also undoubtedly generate
strong public support among Iranians for an
otherwise unpopular regime. Any lingering doubt
that they needed a nuclear deterrent would be erased.
"And are we prepared for what Iran could do in
return? Through its Shiite partners in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it could wreak havoc on our forces
and undermine our efforts to stabilize both
countries. It could threaten oil shipments through
the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than
one-third of the world's oil flows, and urge its
terrorist friends to launch retaliatory strikes
against our allies and us."
-----
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
